McKibben writes: "The new data from Greenland matters for every corner of the planet. Water pouring into the North Atlantic will not only raise sea levels, but is also likely to modify weather patterns. 'If the world allows a substantial fraction of the Greenland ice sheet to disintegrate, all hell breaks loose for eastern North America and Europe,' says NASA's James Hansen, the world's foremost climatologist."
Pools of water form as ice melts atop Jakobshavn Glacier in Greenland. (photo: Brennan Linsley/AP)
The Arctic Ice Crisis
18 August 12
here's no place on Earth that's changing faster - and no place where that change matters more - than Greenland. Late last month, NASA reported that ice all across the vast glacial interior of the world's largest island was melting - a "freak event" that hadn't occurred for at least 150 years. The alarming discovery briefly focused the media's attention on a place that rarely makes headlines. RAPID ICE MELT BAFFLES SCIENTISTS, The Wall Street Journal declared.
In fact, scientists weren't baffled at all - a paper published just weeks before had predicted that an abrupt, islandwide melt was imminent. The rapid loss of ice is only the latest in a chain of events that have upended conventional understanding of how the Earth's "cryosphere" - its frozen places - behave. Taken together, the events offer new insight into how fast the world's seas are likely to rise as a result of global warming - and hence, the fate of major cities like New York and Miami and Mumbai.
Jason Box, a scientist at the Byrd Polar Research Center, has probably spent more time in Greenland than any American of his generation. He began his yearly treks to the island in the 1990s as an undergraduate at the University of Colorado, helping his professor install a series of automated weather stations; last month he was sleeping on a sailboat near the mouth of a huge glacier and traveling onto the ice by helicopter to install yet more sensors. The shift he and his team have measured over the course of the past two decades is startling. "When I took my first course in glaciology," Box says, "conventional thought had the reaction time of the ice sheets to heating on the order of 10,000 years." The ice sheet, scientists believed, was a mostly inert ice cube frozen fast at its bed; if the glaciers melted because of global warming, the process would be, well, glacial.
But in a series of scientific epiphanies beginning in 2002, researchers using GPS have found that melting on the ice's surface can cause large sections of the ice sheet to break free of its moorings in hours, not millennia. In 2006, scientists discovered that ice was suddenly pouring into the ocean at twice the rate previously measured, spurred by a pulse of warm ocean temperatures that undercut the glaciers from below. In two separate instances, Box correctly predicted which sections of a glacier would soon break off - sections, in each case, that were many times larger than the island of Manhattan.
But Box's most crucial contribution to ice science - and the scariest part of his new findings - involves his measurement of Greenland's reflectivity, or "albedo." We know that snow is white: When sunlight hits a glacier, most of it bounces back into space, instead of being absorbed by dark-blue oceans or green forests. But not all ice shines with the same brightness. As snow crystals warm - even before they melt - they lose their jagged edges and become rounder, reflecting less light. "You can see it with your naked eye," says Box. "Think of the way wet sand is darker than dry sand."
Fresh snow bounces back 84 percent of the light that hits it; warm, rounded crystals can reflect as little as 70 percent. Slushy snow saturated by water - which gives it a gray cast, or even a bluish tint - reflects as little as 60 percent. Add dust or soot, and the albedo drops below 40 percent. Box's satellite data has shown a steady darkening in Greenland's albedo, from a July average of 74 percent when the century began to about 68 percent last year.
And then came this summer: Without warning, the line on the albedo chart dropped deep into uncharted territory. At certain altitudes, the ice sheet in Greenland was suddenly four percent less reflective - in a single season. "I confess my heart skipped a beat when I saw how steep the drop was," says Box. "I thought it meant the satellite sensor might have degraded." Instead, weeks of "ground-truthing" - going out on the ice to gather data from imbedded sensors and inspect conditions - verified that it was the ice sheet itself that was darkening. The heat accumulating in the ice sheet year after warm, sunny year was suddenly making it far easier to melt the surface. What's more, in a vicious feedback loop, soot from the wildfires raging in Colorado and Siberia - themselves spurred by climate change - may be helping to darken the surface of the ice. (Box hasn't been able to raise the funds to send a graduate student to do the sampling that would provide a definitive answer.)
Box had conservatively predicted that it might take up to a decade before the surface of Greenland's ice sheet melted all at once. That it actually happened in just a few weeks only underscores how consistently cautious ice scientists have been in forecasting the threat posed by global warming. Now, however, that caution is being replaced by well-founded alarm. "Greenland is a sleeping giant that's waking," says Box. "In this new climate, the ice sheet is going to keep shrinking - the only question is how fast."
The new data from Greenland matters for every corner of the planet. Water pouring into the North Atlantic will not only raise sea levels, but is also likely to modify weather patterns. "If the world allows a substantial fraction of the Greenland ice sheet to disintegrate, all hell breaks loose for eastern North America and Europe," says NASA's James Hansen, the world's foremost climatologist.
But the future, pressing as it is, sometimes gives way to sheer awe at the scale of what we've already done. Simply by changing the albedo of the Greenland ice sheet, Box calculates, the island now absorbs more extra energy each summer than the U.S. consumes in a year. The shape and color of the ice sheet's crystals, in other words, are trapping more of the sun's rays than all the cars and factories and furnaces produce in the world's biggest economy. One of Box's collaborators, photographer James Balog, puts it like this: "Working in Greenland these past years has left me with a profound feeling of being in the middle of a decisive historic moment - the kind of moment, at least in geologic terms, that marks the grand tidal changes of history." Amid this summer's drama of drought, fire and record heat, the planet's destiny may have been revealed, in a single season, by the quiet metamorphosis of a silent, empty sheet of ice.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Did readers happen to note that ships 100k from NewZealand diverted to dodge 10,000 square miles or whatever measurement of Pumice rock shelf floating on the Pacific ocean surface.
From an undersea volcano sea mount = billions of gallons/liteers of hot water heading up via gulf stream Japan baring straights to greenland icemelt.
So global warming is political/econo mic hot air not Pacific volcano hot water the ice melter is now disposing earth overheating center to greanland iceb to atmosphere to bother Mars rover not us.
Chjeers USA.NWO
The same may be said for heavy metals and other pollutants which have been released into the atmosphere for centuries and continue to be. At the moment, they are for the most part locked up in the ice of Greenland. But if that ice melts (as it is)....countles s tons of toxins will flow into the sea.
Yet Bill McKibben is treated as some kind of demigod insofar as his opinions on this subject.
Why is that, I wonder? As far as I can tell from googling his name, he has a degree in Journalism, with no mention of climatology or any other field of science.
I do enjoy most of McKibben's books, especially on food issues. But I don't consider him an expert on food, and especially don't believe he's got the background to be an expert on climatology.
Second concern, which is rather amusing. Oops; running out of room. CONTINUED
Ok, so we're supposed to be worried about melting ice on Greenland. Maybe so, fine. But how ironic that McKibben mentions that this melting is a "freak event" that "had not happened for at least 150 years".
I gather from that statement that this has occurred in the past, perhaps as recently as 150 years ago.
It follows that either this current "freak event" is a natural happening, or else the earlier "freak event" was somehow caused by humans, even though it happened long ago, and was presumably not a result of CO2 emissions?
Any clarification would be most welcome.
Did the melting of Greenland ice way back then "...not only raise sea levels, but ...also ..modify weather patterns."?
And did the melting of a century and a half ago have the same results as McKibben predicted for our immediate future:
" ...all hell breaks loose for eastern North America and Europe"?
Because if this stuff-changing weather patterns, flooding of NYC, etc really did happen in the 19th century, it sure didn't get much press coverage!
Still no one discusses the 2012 Kermadec Islands eruption and pumice raft
"HMNZS Canterbury was the first ship to take scientific samples from a 7,500–10,000 square mile pumice raft that was discovered in the Kermadec islands" Surely such a sea mound Volcano Undersea pushing up 10,000 square Miles of pumice, had first caused billions of gallons of hot water to join the gulf stream to affect Greenland's Ice and water heat? It sure didn't go south to melt the Antarctic shelf?
Koenig goes on to say how this could become "worrisome" were it to continue in the future. Since this has not happened, why is McKibben acting as if this were some big deal? It's cyclic, fer crisakes.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html
Get real, please!
Mr. MDHome, your response is very encouraging to me, as it indicates that my message must be getting through to you; otherwise, you wouldn't be exhibiting so much angst, methinks.
Have you noticed how some people, when they can't argue facts, always seem to attack the messenger instead?
As far as whether or not I'd believe someone who reported that someone had been stabbed, that's a real stretch of logic. It's pretty simple to determine if someone's been stabbed or not. Hardly much room for argument there, generally speaking.
But your even mentioning this is a perfect example of why it's so hard to have reasonable discussions on matters that include so many variables, and so many diverse opinions: MOST PEOPLE TEND TO BELIEVE THE "REPORTER", rather than doing their own research. Doing your own research is very important, in order not to just parrot what someone else told you.
CONTINUED
Of COURSE, if someone does not have the background to understand and evaluate the data, they can ONLY rely on the opinions of others to interpret the facts for them.
A perfect example of this problem is your statement, "Nowhere I can see it saying this happened 150 years ago, simply it has NOT happened for AT LEAST 150 years, prior to that nobody knows if it happened"
You parrot the party line by claiming that "nobody knows if it happened". You failed to do even a simple search of the data to find out if this were true or not. Turns out, it's apparently not true. (I say "apparently" because I only found one source, in a quick googling for information. But my source was at least a well qualified expert in the field, working for NASA, rather than some wacko warmist or wacko skeptic.
The only real evidence I see for my having "reading comprehension" problems (aka "attack the messenger") is that I cannot understand the meaning of your statement "IN ONE WEEK??? GET REAL!!".
Even here, I think my lack of comprehension can be blamed on your lack of clarity. If you'd explain what in the world your statement was referring to, I might understand you better.
FWIW, I was a died in the wool, 45 year registered Democrat, precinct chair, fourth district delegate to US Representative Peter DeFazio.
With all that experience, I naturally fell in with the thinking of my peers, and felt no need to question the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
But then, someone convince me to view Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth".
As a person whose education is in climatolgy, physics, oceanography, hydrology, geology and various other sciences, and whose job experience is in hydrology, water and air monitoring (including temperature monitoring), with US Geological Survey, and as an independent hydrology consultant, I was shocked-SHOCKED -at the shall I say "misleading" statements, charts, etc, presented by Gore.
I have to thank Gore for inspiring me to do my own research on this issue, relying on as many data sources I can find, and using my background to separate the wheat from the chaff to the extent I am able.
I began by realizing that the issue is not "settled", and that the attitude of many warmists is incompatible with scientific method.
It's hard to discuss the actual issues with those whose ideas are inflexible, so i'll simply suggest not closing your mind to new data, just because it threatens conclusions based mostly on hearsay.
There was also, then, newly discovered evidence suggesting such transformation could occur at astonishing speed: mammoths, for example, frozen so quickly the subtropical vegetation they had eaten for breakfast was still undigested.
I do not know if the resultant theories are still accepted because I have not kept up with the literature. The career in natural science that was my first occupational choice was forever obstructed by the fascist savagery that lurks beneath capitalist education -- in those days, the denial of student loans to children of parents who would not sign the required loyalty oaths, the denial of scholarships to applicants who could not obtain the endorsement of a business executive or a minister, priest or rabbi.
Nor do I have the time now to adequately research oceanic currents. I mention the topic merely in the hope some other reader who is current in geological/clim atological/envi ronmental theory might be able to enlighten us on this matter, for which thanks in advance.
There was also, then, newly discovered evidence suggesting such transformation could occur at astonishing speed: mammoths, for example, frozen so quickly the subtropical vegetation they had eaten for breakfast was still undigested.
I do not know if the resultant theories are still accepted because I have not kept up with the literature. The career in natural science that was my first occupational choice was forever obstructed by the fascist savagery that lurks beneath capitalist education -- in those days, the denial of student loans to children of parents who would not sign the required loyalty oaths, the denial of scholarships to applicants who could not obtain the endorsement of a business executive or a minister, priest or rabbi.
Nor do I have the time now to adequately research oceanic currents. I mention the topic merely in the hope some other reader who is current in geological/clim atological/envi ronmental theory might be able to enlighten us on this matter, for which thanks in advance.
I do not these
I feel qualified only to comment on one of your points, Lorenbliss-the frozen mammoths.
I can't say for sure without more information, but i would assume that these mammoths were frozen in subtropical glaciers, and had been eating subtropical vegetation in close proximity to the glacier.
Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume the mammoth(s) at lunch, then unfortunately walked across the glacier, and fell into a deep crevasse? If that happened, I would expect their digestive processes to shut down m/l immediately due to death, that their bodies would freeze quite rapidly, since they would have been located deep below the glacier surface, packed in ice, as it were.
Does this make sense?
I am looking forward to any answers so that I can learn more about AGW.
I recommend you google "medieval warm period" greenland.
Hope that helps; there's plenty of information available, including on wikipedia.
The medieval warm period is also known as one of the several recent "climate optima", which speaks volumes for warm climate.
As far as I know there is no ideal CO2 levels, for humans (anyone who can correct me, please do so) because the amount of CO2 in the air is a miniscule percentage of the total volume of gas.
On the other hand, it seems to be generally recognized as true that increasing CO2 levels translate to better plant growth, since the plants use nothing but CO2, water, and sunlight for photosynthesis. The increased photosynthesis also has a by product of oxygen, which is always nice for us humans :)
RSS feed for comments to this post